Letter: Ayotte critics haven’t done their homework

Many recent letters in the Monitor regarding Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s vote on “gun control” contain emotion-packed comments but an appalling lack of hard data. Apparently many letter writers did not personally read the proposed Manchin-Toomey bill, which was presented to the Senate on March 22 as the “Safe Schools, Safe Communities Act of 2013, S649.” Somehow, it has been mis-translated as “The Firearms Sales Background Check Bill.”

Despite assurances in the compromise negotiations that the bill would not require national registration of firearms, in amongst all the legalese, Section 122, Paragraph (t)(4)(A) states that “Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this section with regulations.” Paragraph (t)(4)(B) states that “Regulations promulgated under this paragraph . . . (ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer . . .”

Not much imagination is required to determine how the attorney general would “implement this regulation” in the near future. Ayotte was quoted as saying that, as proposed, S649 would be ineffective because it emphasized gun show transactions over solutions to the problems of mental health treatment and strengthening the existing system. Monitor letter writers state that Ayotte “opposes background checks”; that is not what she said.

Undoubtedly, effective firearms regulation at the federal level could be improved; this requires much careful thought and deliberation. Those who would have us immediately “do something” have not completed their homework.

At Mr. Anderson's urging I read the bill. It's tough sledding - I'm no lawyer. But changeisgood seems to get it right, as far as I can tell. Perhaps Mr. Anderson was reading an earlier draft (he references March 22, not the April 11 version that Senator Toomey released)?
As to TCB . . . . Well, if I can't say anything nice, I should just be quiet, right?

TCB wrote:

05/28/2013

changeisgood,
yes, I read the passages but also know how the current adm is simply sidestepped laws, regs and civil liberties of others they find inconvenient to their socialist movement. I read quote from 2 Fed Dem legislators who stated, "Of course gun laws won't work without widespread confiscations...." If they are willing to sacrifice diplomats to radical Islamists - do you really think something as minor as the constitution would bother their souls?

changeisgood wrote:

05/28/2013

No one criticizing Ayotte is mistaken on this point. The writer should follow his own advice! SA 715 published in the Congressional Record April 11, states 3 times a registry is prohibited. Ayotte voted against this amendment on April 17:
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
...
(2) Congress supports and reaffirms the existing
prohibition on a national firearms registry.
SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or any amendment
made by this title, shall be construed to—
...
(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly,
of a Federal firearms registry.
SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
...
(c) PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY.—
Section 923 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate
or centralize the records of the—
‘‘(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms,
or any portion thereof, maintained by—
‘‘(A) a person with a valid, current license
under this chapter;
‘‘(B) an unlicensed transferor under section
922(t); or
‘‘(2) possession or ownership of a firearm,
maintained by any medical or health insurance
entity.’’.